Patna High Court
Sabiya Devi vs The State Of Bihar on 1 August, 2025
Author: Partha Sarthy
Bench: Partha Sarthy
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.5524 of 2025
======================================================
1. Sabiya Devi, Wife of Jagdish Kora, resident of Village-Kora, P.O. Ghoghi,
P.S.-Piri Bazar, District-Lakhisarai, presently Member of Territorial
Constituency No. 27 of Block Panchayat Samiti, Suryagarha, District-
Lakhisarai.
2. Arvind Kumar, Son of Karelal Saw, resident of Village and P.O. Ghoghi,
P.S.-Piri Bazar, District-Lakhisarai, Member of Executive Committee of
Gram Panchayat Raj, Rajpur Chaura, Block-Suryagarha, District-Lakhisarai.
3. Rinku Devi, Wife of Prafulla Kumar Singh, resident of Village-Rajpur, P.S.
Piri Bazar, District-Lakhisarai, Member of Executive Committee of Gram
Panchayat Raj, Rajpur Chaura, Block-Suryagarha, District-Lakhisarai.
4. Pammi Devi, Wife of Rajiv Ranjan Kumar, resident of Village-Rampur
Chora, P.O. and P.S. Piri Bazar, District-Lakhisarai, Member of Executive
Committee of Gram Panchayat Raj, Rajpur Chaura, Block-Suryagarha,
District-Lakhisarai.
5. Ranju Devi, Wife of Manoj Paswan, resident of Village-Rampur Chora, P.O.
and P.S. Piri Bazar, District-Lakhisarai, Member of Executive Committee of
Gram Panchayat Raj, Rajpur Chaura, Block-Suryagarha, District-Lakhisarai.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Chief Secretary, Government of Bihar, Patna.
2. The Additional Chief Secretary, Panchayati Raj Department, Government of
Bihar, Patna.
3. The District Magistrate, Lakhisarai, District-Lakhisarai.
4. The District Panchayat Raj Officer, Lakhisarai, District-Lakhisarai.
5. The Block Development Officer, Suryagarha, District-Lakhisarai.
6. The Circle Officer, Suryagarha, District-Lakhisarai.
7. The Executive Engineer, Local Area Engineering Organization, Lakhisarai,
District-Lakhisarai.
8. The Mukhiya, Gram Panchayat Raj, Rajpur Chaura, Block-Suryagarha,
District-Lakhisarai.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. S.B.K. Manglam, Advocate
Mr. Awnish Kumar, Advocate
Mr. Kumar Gaurav, Advocate
Mr. Vikas Kumar Singh, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr. P.K. Shahi, Advocate General
Mr. Vikas Kumar, A.C. to AG
======================================================
Patna High Court CWJC No.5524 of 2025 dt.01-08-2025
2/7
CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHA SARTHY
ORAL JUDGMENT
(Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE)
Date : 01-08-2025
Heard Mr. Awnish Kumar, learned counsel for the
petitioners and Mr. P.K. Shahi, learned Advocate General
assisted by Mr. Vikas Kumar, learned counsel for the
respondent-State.
2. The present petition, in the nature of Public Interest
Litigation, has been filed by the petitioners under Article 226 of
the Constitution of India with a prayer to quash the report dated
01.02.2025
submitted by Respondent Nos. 5 and 6 to
Respondent No. 4 vide Memo No. 119 dated 01.02.2025
recommending the construction of Panchayat Sarkar Bhawan in
Plot No. 404 of Khata No. 407 situated in Village- Tumni which
is 10 Kilometres away from the headquarter village of Gram
Panchayat.
3. Petitioners also prayed that the respondents be
directed to produce on record the order passed by Respondent
No. 3 after 10.01.2025 in respect of construction of Panchayat
Sarkar Bhawan of Gram Panchayat Raj, Rajpur Chaura in Plot
No. 604, Khata No. 460, admeasuring an area of 50 decimals.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners referred to the
Patna High Court CWJC No.5524 of 2025 dt.01-08-2025
averments made in the memo of the petition and thereafter
submitted that for construction of Panchayat Sarkar Bhawan in
Gram Panchayat of the State, different guidelines have been
issued by the State Government from time to time. Learned
counsel referred to the guidelines which have been issued and
the letter dated 30.08.2022, copy of which is placed on record as
Annexure-P-1 at Page No. 21 of the compilation. It is the
grievance of the petitioners that though there was sufficient land
in the plot in which the Panchayat Sarkar Bhawan was
constructed in the year 1983, the respondent authorities had
selected different land of Khata No. 460 bearing Plot No. 604
situated in Village- Tumni under Rajpur Mauza for construction
of Panchayat Sarkar Bhawan, Gram Panchayat Raj, Rajpur
Chaura, pursuant thereto Respondent No. 3 directed the
Executive Engineer, Local Area Engineering Organization,
Lakhisarai for preparation of estimate vide communication
dated 06.10.2022.
5. It is the case of the petitioners that when the
petitioners came to know about the same, representation was
made to the concerned respondent authority. Ultimately, Three
Men Committee was constituted and the report was submitted.
Learned counsel has referred to Annexure-P-5 at Page-30 of the
Patna High Court CWJC No.5524 of 2025 dt.01-08-2025
compilation i.e. Minutes of the Meeting dated 10.01.2025. It has
been pointed out from the said document that Respondent Nos.
5 and 6 were directed to submit their report.
6. It is further contended by learned counsel that
pursuant to the direction given by Respondent No. 3, District
Magistrate, Lakhisarai, Respondent Nos. 5 and 6 submitted the
report dated 01.02.2025 in which it has been stated that the land
in question is a proper place where Panchayat Sarkar Bhawan
can be constructed. Petitioners have, therefore, preferred the
present petition for quashing of the said report submitted by
Respondent Nos. 5 and 6. It has been further contended that
after receipt of the report from Respondent Nos. 5 and 6,
Respondent Nos. 3, District Magistrate, Lakhisarai has till date
not taken any decision whether to construct the said Panchayat
Sarkar Bhawan at the said place or not and in the meantime, as
per the information received by the petitioners, the concerned
contractor has already started construction at the place in
question. Learned counsel, therefore, urged that the present
Public Interest Litigation has been filed by the petitioners with a
request that the aforesaid construction be stopped till the
decision is taken by the District Magistrate.
7. On the other hand, learned Advocate General has
Patna High Court CWJC No.5524 of 2025 dt.01-08-2025
opposed the present petition and referred to the counter affidavit
filed on behalf of Respondent Nos. 3 to 6. It has been pointed
out from the said counter affidavit that in fact the decision was
taken in the year 2022 to construct the Panchayat Sarkar
Bhawan at the place in question. However, thereafter,
considering the objections raised by the petitioners, matter was
once again examined by the concerned respondent authority. In
fact, jointly spot was examined by the Circle Officer as well as
Block Development Officer i.e. Respondent Nos. 5 and 6 and
thereafter they have submitted their report on 01.02.2025. It is
further submitted that as per the said report, the Panchayat
Sarkar Bhawan can be constructed at the place in question.
Learned Advocate General has referred to the report submitted
by Respondent Nos. 5 and 6, copy of which is placed on record
at Page-36 of the counter affidavit.
8. Learned Advocate General would thereafter
contend that it is for the concerned authority to decide where the
Panchayat Sarkar Bhawan is to be constructed and it is not for
any individual or village people to decide the same. In the
present case, when there is a report submitted by Respondent
Nos. 5 and 6 with regard to the land in question, this Court may
not entertain the present petition.
Patna High Court CWJC No.5524 of 2025 dt.01-08-2025
9. Having heard learned counsels appearing for the
parties and having gone through the materials placed on record,
it transpires that Respondent No. 3 has considered Three Men
Committee's report. The report has been placed on record at
Page-34 of the compilation. Now, pursuant to the decision taken
in the said meeting, Respondent Nos. 5 and 6 have visited the
place in question and thereafter now submitted the report on
01.02.2025. Once the concerned respondent authorities have
visited the place in question and thereafter submitted the report,
we are of the view that the present petition filed by the
petitioners is misconceived. We are of the view that the
petitioners have made very vague averments in the memo of the
petition in Paragraph 17 that construction work has already been
initiated by the concerned contractor. In fact, the concerned
contractor is not impleaded as party respondent in the present
petition. We are, therefore, of the view that if the decision is not
taken by Respondent No. 3 pursuant to the report dated
01.02.2025, it is open for Respondent No. 3 to take appropriate
decision in accordance with law pursuant to the
communication/report dated 01.02.2025 submitted by
Respondent Nos. 5 and 6.
10. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we are not
Patna High Court CWJC No.5524 of 2025 dt.01-08-2025
inclined to quash the report dated 01.02.2025 submitted by
Respondent Nos. 5 and 6, as prayed for in the present petition.
11. Accordingly, the present writ petition stands
dismissed.
(Vipul M. Pancholi, CJ)
(Partha Sarthy, J)
P.K.P./-
AFR/NAFR
CAV DATE
Uploading Date 02.08.2025
Transmission Date
